At its core,

[bigred]

It might be the ethical framework adapted to for hundreds of millions of years.

So was the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe. Paradigms need to be constantly challenged. I don't think this is a good argument but I understand you're also providing context. Also, I would argue that our societal/productive stage of evolution was far different. Nomadic tribes vying for resources vs our industrialized current economy where ideologies like "find a job that makes you happy" can exist are drastically different.

Let's hope Nietzsche was wrong about the discarding of this framework leading to the demise of western civilization.

Meh. I think this is easy to dismiss. The great classical philosopher, Socrates, once famously quoted the younger generation were morally bankrupt and would ruin the country. I think Nietzsche's belief is more indicative of an opinion of the western civilization's feebleness with which I disagree.

Religion appears to be a way of putting into words the principles that our ancestors used to survive.

And now we have technology platforms that enable the dialogue and continued evaluation of our principles and values. We've progressed.

Logos, self-sacrifice, etc.. Evolution may have selected for archetypes most able to adapt. Take a tribe of people and select their best characteristics and write a story about one person with those characteristics. That's a hero. Take a bunch of heroes and select their best characteristics and write a story about one person with those characteristics. That's like a religious meta-hero. Even though I do not believe in a scientifically true god, I'm wary to throw out the bedrock of the human spirit. I'm wary to assume that science and reason can inform us how to act. But the archetypes, they tell us how to act. The monkey who could kill the snake, he was a great guy. He was probably like a hero to other monkeys. He probably bred more. Eventually we get the knight who slays the dragon and saves the virgin. Eventually we get the religious meta-hero like Christ, who slays the snake in humankind itself by sacrificing his life to speak the truth so that others can speak the truth without having to sacrifice their lives. These archetypal modes of being are in our biology.

Can you clarify how these archetypal modes are in our biology? I think you're making some very large assumptions to your arguments which makes it difficult for us to have a conversation about the above.

Frankly, Wuf, I think much of this comes down to a fundamental belief regarding human nature. Your arguments, to my interpretation, are predicated on a belief that humans are weak-minded and need ethical frameworks like religion in order that they don't eat each other alive. In my opinion, this is a major underlying assumption of the conservative ideology.

I, on the other hand, think humans are incredibly advanced creatures who continue to iterate on the foundations built over time through shared knowledge and understanding that evolves into wisdom. This wisdom continues to evolve and iterate over time. We're still working on some of the bugs (the fight or flight mechanism, for example) that leads to some of our uglier outcomes.

[wufwugy]

Meh. I think this is easy to dismiss. The great classical philosopher, Socrates, once famously quoted the younger generation were morally bankrupt and would ruin the country. I think Nietzsche's belief is more indicative of an opinion of the western civilization's feebleness with which I disagree.

I think I disagree with Nietzsche on this too, though I don't think his concern is wrong. I think my disagreement is that I think God actually isn't dead, meaning that the moral foundation of the West remains even though the church undergoes change, or something to that effect. I think there is great resilience in the human world, and I can't actually say that it's a loss of moral fabric that collapses civilizations (though that degradation is very alarming and we've got plenty of it).

Frankly, Wuf, I think much of this comes down to a fundamental belief regarding human nature. Your arguments, to my interpretation, are predicated on a belief that humans are weak-minded and need ethical frameworks like religion in order that they don't eat each other alive. In my opinion, this is a major underlying assumption of the conservative ideology.

I, on the other hand, think humans are incredibly advanced creatures who continue to iterate on the foundations built over time through shared knowledge and understanding that evolves into wisdom. This wisdom continues to evolve and iterate over time. We're still working on some of the bugs (the fight or flight mechanism, for example) that leads to some of our uglier outcomes.

That's roughly accurate. The way I've seen it described, and I agree with it, is that one side thinks humans are basically good and that institutions corrupt; whereas the other side thinks that humans are not basically good and that institutions reform. I tend to lean more towards the latter. In politics, this whole thing is a mess due to very weird marriages of ideas and galvanizing people. For example, an evolutionary biologist should probably think in terms of the latter, yet today it seems many of them think in terms of the former.

[wufwugy]

God actually isn't dead, meaning that the moral foundation of the West remains even though the church undergoes change, or something to that effect.

I'd like add that I don't think the church or even church traditions appropriately represent God. They try to. But I can think of two examples I think they get grossly wrong: (1) idolizing God, meaning they have turned it from an idea of nature to a literal man, and (2) the idea that sin is an indiscretion, meaning that they have turned what seems to have originally been an idea about "misalignment with a mode of being" to "doing wrong and being bad."